Monday, October 29, 2012

The recent jail sentence handed out to Italian seismologists has provoked angry reactions from across a spectrum of commentators. Some of these seem to have been written in the heat of the moment. In good academic tradition it is perhaps better to analyse the issues at play, as dispassionately as possible. I have drafted a paper in which I try to provide an account of decision making under uncertainty in which scientific expertise has been used in a specific way by public authorities.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

It is not the failure of the regulations that is the problem but their
basic design. They have caused people to focus on the most expensive
ways of mitigating climate change, rather than the cheapest, imposing
high costs for little gain. Moreover, by concentrating on their own
carbon production, and how to reduce it, Europeans have ignored the
impact of their continued demand for goods made using carbon- intensive
processes. Since Chinese and Indian manufacturing is usually dirtier
than Europe’s, the real upshot of Europe’s choices has been an increase
in global emissions. The regulatory approach, argues Mr Helm, has got
the worst of all worlds. It is expensive, it has not cut emissions and
its treaties are unworkable. No wonder the public is growing sceptical.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Simon Jenkins in the Guardian sees some merit in the Aquila court decision (see here for an excellent comment). While he does not go as far as justifying the jail sentences for the six scientific experts who "failed to predict" the earthquake in Italy, he thinks they should be held to account, just like other professionals:

Last week the English paper Mail on Sunday had a story claiming that a Met Office report shows global warming had stopped 16 years ago. The article, written by David Rose, caused a storm and was contested in a piece Dana Nuccitelli had written for Skeptical Science and published by the Guardian. It is certainly no accident that these two papers aligned themselves in predictable ways. And it is no accident that corresponding blogs reacted in predictable ways.

What is the fuss about? The Mail article shows temperature data from 1997 to 2012 with no warming trend.

Friday, October 12, 2012

There is a new paper out under this title by Indur Goklany, to be published in WIRES Climate Change.

Here is the abstract:
This paper challenges claims that global warming outranks other threats facing humanity through the foreseeable future (assumed to be 2085–2100). World Health Organization and British government‐sponsored global impact studies indicate that, relative to other factors, global warming's impact on key determinants of human and environmental well‐being should be small through 2085 even under the warmest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Our friend Reinhard Böhm has died, unexpectedly but at least on his beloved Sonnenblick. Wonderful critical observer not only of climate but also of the social process "climate science". His book "Heisse Luft" was an inspiring (and well written) read. (Is the song "Komm lieber Mai und mache die Bäume wieder grün" of Mozart indicative that it is now warmer than in Mozart's times? - No ... read Reinhard.)
Spiegel on-line has more on this sad news.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Regular readers of this blog will remember that we had quite a few discussions about the alleged (or real) alarmism over climate change. The UK (among other countries) seemed to be a case in point. Now the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, is on record of saying pretty much the same (or at least some unnamed source close to her -- you see, it is a sensitive issue).

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Dieter Helm, the Oxford economist and climate change expert, has a new book out. It is calledThe Carbon Crunch: How We’re Getting Climate Change Wrong – and How to Fix it. He has written a blog which summarizes the main points here. He argues that the coming years will see an increase in carbon emissions, primarily through additional energy generation with coal power plants. Emerging economies will be using this form of energy supply because it is cheap. It is also dirty, in fact the dirtiest form of energy. China and India are currently opening 3 coal power stations a week.

Monday, October 1, 2012

An interesting report is out, co-authored by Emily Shuckburgh, Rosie Robison and Nick Pidgeon. It examines the public perception of climate science and climate scientists in the UK, comparing data collected in six focus group interviews. There are some results which will not surprise Klimazwiebel regulars, others might. Below I summarize the main findings:

Remember the headlines that we have 10-15 years to save the planet? Six years ago Tony Blair warned that the world will reach "catastrophic tipping points" on climate change "within 15 years, unless serious action is taken to tackle global warming." The Guardian from 2006 quoted him saying "We have a window of only 10-15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points." This rhetoric was deployed in the run up to the climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009. After its failure it seemed to have been forgotten, almost an embarrassment. Mainstream politicians, keen to use the rhetoric before 2009, seemed to have ditched it afterwards.

Sustainable use of KLIMAZWIEBEL

The participants of KLIMAZWIEBEL are made of a diverse group of people interested in the climate issue; among them people, who consider the man-made climate change explanation as true, and others, who consider this explanation false. We have scientists and lay people; natural scientists and social scientists. People with different cultural and professional backgrounds. This is a unique resource for a relevant and inspiring discussion. This resource needs sustainable management by everybody. Therefore we ask to pay attention to these rules:

1. We do not want to see insults, ad hominem comments, lengthy tirades, ongoing repetitions, forms of disrespect to opponents. Also lengthy presentation of amateur-theories are not welcomed. When violating these rules, postings will be deleted.2. Please limit your contributions to the issues of the different threads.3. Please give your name or use an alias - comments from "anonymous" should be avoided.4. When you feel yourself provoked, please restrain from ranting; instead try to delay your response for a couple of hours, when your anger has evaporated somewhat.5. If you wan to submit a posting (begin a new thread), send it to either Eduardo Zorita or Hans von Storch - we publish it within short time. But please, only articles related to climate science and climate policy.6. Use whatever language you want. But maybe not a language which is rarely understood in Hamburg.